GovernmentExecutive.com

The Government Accountability Office will reassess its work evaluations system, begin an agencywide discussion of race and formal diversity training, and expand its efforts to recruit minority employees after an independent report concluded that cultural issues are contributing to disparities in how African-American and Caucasian analysts were rated on their job performance.

"These first steps will not be enough, and I am committed to do more," said acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. "I am committed to ensuring an even playing field for every employee at GAO and making sure every employee has equal opportunities at our agency."

The disparity in rankings came to light when Ronald Stroman, managing director of GAO's Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness, began releasing performance data sorted by demographics. GAO hired the Ivy Planning Group, an independent consulting and training firm in Rockville, Md., to investigate the discrepancies and their causes.

That report, released on May 1, found that the gulf between the average ratings of black and white analysts across all job bands continued in the 2006 cycle, with the most significant gaps occurring in Bands IIA and IIB. The discrepancy in ratings decreased between 2005 and 2006, but persisted nonetheless, according to the report.

The study suggested that there were a number of structural and cultural factors at GAO that contributed to the issue. The agency's professional development program does not require advisers to act as mentors, and does not include guidance on unwritten rules for success like networking and establishing relationships with colleagues within the workplace.

"African-American analysts often reported that informal feedback received is less actionable [compared with Caucasian analysts' reports]," the Ivy Planning Group said in their report. Caucasian analysts were more likely than African-American analysts to believe they learned the rules through informal guidance."

The report also found that qualifications or experiences that contributed to higher ratings for white analysts had no impact on the evaluations black analysts received. For example, having a doctorate and working on a high-risk project boosted ratings for Caucasians, but did not affect the evaluations of African-Americans.

Both African-American and Caucasian analysts told the Ivy Planning Group that the competencies used in performance assessments were vague and not always weighted to match their actual significance. White analysts, however, were more likely to say that the recruiting process failed blacks; African-Americans faulted the performance ratings system.

The report recommended more frequent and comprehensive evaluations to ensure that analysts have opportunities to discuss and improve their performance before the formal ratings process. It also suggested that GAO clarify the roles of mentors and consider more innovative ways to recruit African-American analysts.

The consulting firm said GAO needed a frank and honest discussion of race to clear the air so reforms could take root. "Before thinking about diversity more broadly, we believe GAO will benefit from addressing the race issue directly in order to mitigate any barriers that may limit communication, coaching and career development," the report said.

COMMENTS

• jc--it's not the "race card" that is being played: it is the "reality card". I imagine if the stats for NSPS ratings at DOD were checked, one would find that those of a certain "race" did not fare as well as those of other "races"--just as in the case of GAO. In this culture, Caucasions and Asians are generally viewed as being the highest performers. African-Americans and Hispanics -- not so much. Cultural biases are allowed to run rampant and unchecked in a system that allows for so much subjectivity in the ratings process. A supervisor with a lot of "baggage" -- who sees certain people in a certain way -- will rate them according to his (generally the supervisor is a white male) world view. It is very annoying when the "majority" scream that the "minority" hires are somehow less than their counterparts and that those "minority" hires would dare have the audacity to raise complaints or issues related to that touchstone called "Race in America". I suppose those of us who are in the minority should be expected to know our place and not cry foul when our ratings are not reflective of how we perform, but, rather, a reflection of our racial heritage. jeremy Posted May 12, 2008 12:51 PM
• While there are, in fact, African Americans as well as people of all other races, creeds, cultures, and gender who are well-qualified to be analysts at GAO, it does not necessarily follow that all currently in the employ of the GAO are well qualified for their position or higher grade. The performance disparity noted may very well be due to past hiring practices - politically driven preferential hiring regardless of "well qualified" vs. "minimally qualified" (i.e., affirmative action; racial / gender quotas). By the way - for those who have failed to maintain situational awareness - racism and sexism have been, and are, practiced by some in ALL races and genders; no one class or set of individuals has a "corner on the market" in that regard. Good comments by JL and Fact-Based Analyst Hmm Posted May 8, 2008 12:21 PM
• I am sure that typical of GAO's knee-jerk, risk-verse reaction to any public criticism, there will be a great push to immediately lure in and promote all African Americans. It has probably already begun. Mrs. Wiggins Posted May 8, 2008 8:26 AM